melvisntnormal

I agree with your general vibe but it's worth noting that this was semi-proportional.

Hungary uses Mixed-Member Majoritarian, so the constituency seats do not influence the proportional seats. Mixed-Member Proportional generally attempts to make the final seat count match the list vote as close as possible, whereas in MMM, it's almost as if the constituency seats and list seats are for two separate-but-parallel elections.

To put this in perspective, Tisza (the winning party) got 53% of the list vote, but nearly 70% of the seats (which is even more significant because in Hungary, you need 67% of the seats in their unicameral parliament to amend the constitution). MMP would have not awarded such a large majority; they would have got about 106 seats instead of 138.

Again, big fan of proportional representation, and while Hungary's system is technically better than what we have here in the UK (unless you're Scottish, Welsh, Norther Irish, or a Londoner), it's not really a good example of PR.

I will wear my "Slowest Reaction" and "Closest To Zero" accolades with pride 🏆

my headcannon:

Well... That's kinda terrifying

Reminds me of when my VP of engineering told me to be careful when trying to get to the TypeScript Playground. Googling "ts playground" brought him to a site that was absolutely not safe for work.

(() => "I'm in.")()

ahh so that's why charizard is so hot

New Mexico was the reason I was thinking that Congress would have to pass federal legislation first to dictate how state ratifying conventions are run.

Again, from someone on the outside looking in, it seems like the option with the best chance of succeeding. But I also think Article V itself should be amended to explicitly use referendums to ratify amendments. Maybe even take a page out of Switzerland's book?

I agree with everything you said, but I'm not talking about conventions to propose amendments, I'm talking about the ones to ratify amendments. Could a Democratic Congress with 2/3rds of each chamber pass a veto-proof law to regulate the ratifying conventions, then pass amendments specifying that they must be ratified by conventions, similar to how prohibition was repealed? As I understand it, the convention route was created by the founding fathers specifically in case they needed to bypass state legislatures.

Seems like the "state-ratifying conventions" route is the only thing that has a chance of working, and that's ignoring that the Constitution doesn't regulate them.

Although, seeing as an amendment need 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress to pass, regardless of sending it to the legislatures or conventions (not for the convention to propose amendments), could Congress use that veto-proof majority to pass a law regulating conventions?

Whatever the idea, pretty sure this ends up in the Supreme Court regardless?

... is it weird that I've been thinking about this for the last decade? I'm not even American.

I wish I saw this first. I'm very prone to off-by-one errors.

I opened the comments thinking that I solved it, then some comments with broken spoiler tags essentially spoiled the actual answer for me, despite my best efforts to ignore them.

With these types of puzzles, I normally start looking for solutions that don't just involve the obvious operations. Had I seen your comment first, I would've continued playing with the first thing I noticed (and later abandoned for the wrong solution) and I think I would've got there by myself eventually.

Either others need to be more mindful of their spoiler tags, or I need to stop using Sync for Lemmy. It's probably the latter; I've seen such weird formatting that only makes sense if I assume Sync's Markdown renderer is broken.

Sounds fine to me, if this is a picture of a Twitter-like site then I don't really see an issue